THE FLORIDA BAR, COMPLAINANT,
v.
BENJAMIN COHEN, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Florida Supreme Court suspended Benjamin Cohen from practicing law pending disciplinary proceedings after his petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court was denied, following his conviction for filing a false income tax return.
Yes, Benjamin Cohen is suspended from the practice of law in Florida until further determination by The Florida Bar and the Court.
“There has now been filed in this cause evidence that the respondent's petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court in re Cohen v. United States, 385 U.S. -, 87 S.Ct. 395, 17 L.Ed.2d -, has been denied.”
Establishes the procedural event that triggered the court's current action.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBenjamin Cohen was convicted of filing a false income tax return and sentenced to imprisonment and a fine. The Florida Bar petitioned for his suspensi…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Suspension From Practice Of Law cases and more on FLexlaw
ORDER SUSPENDING RESPONDENT
An order was entered in this cause October 19, 1966, Fla., 191 So.2d 49, deferring action on the pending petition of The Florida Bar for suspension of the respondent Benjamin Cohen from the practice of law pursuant to Integration Rule, Article XI, Rule 11.08(3), 31 F.S.A.; such action was deferred to await final action by the United States Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari by the said Benjamin Cohen from the judgment of conviction for the offense of filing a false and fraudulent income tax return for the calendar year 1960 in violation of Title 26, U.S.Code, Section 7201, and a consequent sentence of eighteen months imprisonment and $10,000 fine. There has now been filed in this cause evidence that the respondent’s petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court in re Cohen v. United States, 385 U.S. -, 87 S.Ct. 395, 17 L.Ed.2d -, has been denied. Now, therefore, it is
ORDERED that Benjamin Cohen, a member of The Florida Bar, be and he is hereby suspended from the practice of law in this State until after determination of disciplinary proceedings by The Florida Bar as provided in the Integration Rule and until the further order of this Court It is so ordered.
THORNAL, C. J., and THOMAS, ROBERTS, DREW and O’CONNELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Gen. Ins. Co. OF Am. v. Reid, 216 So. 2d 41 (Fla. 4th DCA 1968)…was applied to the employee exclusion clause, such clause was not effective to exclude coverage under the policy unless the person making the claim was the employee of the insured against whom the claim zvas asserted. The Supreme Court of Florida at 193 So. 2d 435 expressly approved this court’s holding in Schuitema and there should be no question now but that in this jurisdiction, as concerns the severability of interest clause and its effect on the employee exclusion clause, the law is settled. Appellee ass…
-
McRAE v. Snelling, 303 So. 2d 670 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)…collected and discussed in the article by Risjord and Austin, “Who is ‘the Insured’ ”, XXIV University of Kansas City Law Review 65 (Fall Issue 1955). . Shelby Mutual Insurance Co. v. Schuitema, Fla.App.1966, 183 So. 2d 571 (cert. disch. Fla.1967, 193 So. 2d 435). . The cross-employee exception to the omnibus clause in the USF & G policy was in language identical to the policy involved in the case of General Insurance Company of America v. Reid, Fla.App.1968, 216 So. 2d 41. Therein, we pointed out why, und…
-
Fid. & Cas. Co. OF NEW York v. Fonseca, 358 So. 2d 569 (Fla. 3d DCA 1978)…2). Rojas and Fonseca assert that the husband’s car qualifies as a temporary substitute and that the case which should control our decision here [*572] in is Shelby Mutual Insurance Company v. Schuitema, 183 So. 2d 571 (Fla. 4th DCA 1966); affirmed, 193 So. 2d 435 (Fla.1967). They argue that Boyd did not deal with the applicability of a severability of interests clause and therefore should not be disposi-tive here, while Schuitema, which did deal with such a clause, should determine the result in the cases at…
Previewing 3 of 9 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- THE Florida BAR v. Cohen, 191 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1966)
- Bell v. State, 191 So. 2d 49 (Fla. 1966)